Lynne Yelich

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-25, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, commonly understood to provide enhanced protection for whistleblowers in the public service.

In many respects, today's debate is not an occasion to celebrate efforts to foster greater openness and accountability in government as my Liberal colleagues would have us believe. We are first debating this legislation on a Friday, the last day before a two week break, which may be extended if an election is called.

It is true that the government fulfilled its promise made in January that this legislation would be introduced before the end of March. Regrettably, the Treasury Board president also promised that this legislation would not be passed before the public accounts committee had completed its investigation into the sponsorship scandal, not prior to the public inquiry into the same scandal.

The end result is that whatever the benefits of this legislation, and those benefits would appear to be dubious at best, it will not be in place to encourage frank disclosures by civil servants with respect to the past transgressions of senior government officials or ministers. This state of affairs is highly regrettable since Canadians of all political persuasions want to believe that the current government is sincere in its professed desire to root out corruption in government. Public service unions are equally concerned that the changes in government culture that the Prime Minister has widely proclaimed will in fact occur.

For example, following on the heels of the disgraceful behaviour of former privacy commissioner George Radwanski, we learned of the case of Norman Steinberg, the public works official responsible for ethics in his department. He spent $22,000 for an entertainment system for his office, including a widescreen plasma television. He attended 33 conferences that cost $86,000.

As Public Service Alliance of Canada president Nycole Turmel said at the time, unless the Prime Minister puts an end to the free-spending ways of public servants like Radwanski, who is no longer employed, and Steinberg, who continues to be employed, all federal employees look bad. In fact, it is these very employees by way of public sector unions who are leading the way in calling for whistleblowing legislation.

For example, some commentators have criticized the apparent silence of employees in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during the period of abuses by Mr. Radwanski. Lynn Ray, the president of the Union of Solicitor General Employees, recently wrote to correct public perceptions. As she pointed out:

The problem was not that people did not know of the problems. The problem was that the people who knew could not speak out. Government workers have seen what happens to people who blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Even when their allegations are proved accurate, they still pay a horrible price. The careers of whistleblowers are destroyed and their family lives are devastated.

Whistleblowers perform an important service to the public. Their actions save not only public money. By exposing dangers to safety and health, they save the very lives of Canadians. Whistleblowers should be praised, not punished. They should not pay for their public service by putting their jobs on the line. Employees and the Canadian public need strong and effective legislation to protect those who reveal wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, this legislation does little to effect the Prime Minister's wishes, assuming that he is sincere in addressing government corruption and waste. It also does not address the concerns of employees who want to be protected when they speak out. It is even deficient in the eyes of Canada's first public service integrity officer, noted ethicist Dr. Edward Keyserlingk. Not much has been heard from him since his appointment in November 2001. He currently reports to the President of the Treasury Board.

At the time, the integrity officer was operating under a Treasury Board policy to encourage employee disclosure of wrongdoing. The problem was there were no perceived legislative protections that would protect employees from reprisals.

In addition, as Dr. Keyserlingk pointed out in September 2003, at the time of his first annual report tabled in Parliament through the President of the Treasury Board, he was being regarded in much the same light as the ethics counsellor. He was not regarded as being functionally independent of the government.

Dr. Keyserlingk called for legislation to create a revised agency to better enable the disclosure and correction of wrongdoings in the public service and protection for whistleblowers from reprisals. This same individual called the current legislation before the House a disappointment.

One of the main reasons the legislation is disappointing in the eyes of so many is because the whistleblower is compelled to make his or her disclosures through internal government channels and, in particular, through either a superior or the newly constituted public sector integrity commissioner.

The problem persists. The public sector integrity commissioner will not function independently of Parliament. He or she will instead report through a minister as yet to be designated by the Prime Minister. The deficiency is obvious. If the wrongdoing emanates from or involves the office of the minister, what possible protection is there for a whistleblower?

There has now been testimony from several sources that the sponsorship program was directed by the then minister of public works. There is also testimony that directions to this program were also emanating from the office of the Prime Minister.

As but one example, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has publicly disclosed information received by him from a civil servant who was told to write a cheque for $100,000 for work he knew was never performed. When the civil servant objected, his superior advised him that they were taking their instructions directly from the PMO and that he should sign it. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has stated, we believe it goes to the highest level of the Prime Minister's Office, including the former prime minister.

Consistent with the legislative weaknesses already noted is the fact that whistleblower protection is not accorded to the House of Commons staff, the RCMP or members of Canada's armed forces, among others, yet we know that none of these entities are free from scandal. In particular, we have a recent example from this past January of the very public RCMP raid of the residence of Ottawa Citizen reporter, Juliet O'Neill, seeking information in her possession concerning the Maher Arar case. In that case, Mr. Arar contends that it was the RCMP and related security personnel who conspired to have him diverted to Syria where he spent one year in jail without trial.

The raid on Ms. O'Neill's residence also sends another message concerning the deficiencies of the legislation before us. It does not protect whistleblowers who make their disclosures to the media or otherwise, apart from the approved channels of disclosure, the non-independent public sector integrity commissioner.

Similarly, the stories of a veteran RCMP officer condemned for leaking the allegations of corruption at the Canadian high commission in Hong Kong and a civilian fire chief fired for revealing what he considered unsafe conditions on a Canadian military base in Afghanistan highlight the need for comprehensive whistleblower legislation that does protect those who speak out when they see problems.

What is particularly important under the proposed legislation is that the public sector integrity commissioner would not necessarily be appointed by an all party committee. Instead, we have the potential for the ethics counsellor appointment process where there is no independent review of qualifications or effectiveness.

From examples we know about, we can see that in many respects the legislation will actually discourage whistleblowers from coming forward because the protections available to them are substantially as empty as the ones they have at present.

As one commentator noted, conscientious people who want to serve the taxpayers honestly should have no fear of reprisals at all. The proposed legislation does not provide that assurance.

The kind of environment that punishes people who speak out is not exclusive to this federal level. In my home city of Saskatoon there is a case where a hospital head of emergency medicine was removed from his position after he wrote a letter to the province stating patient care was compromised because of a lack of resources. Is there a connection?

Those types of cases are the reason I am interested in this legislation. We have a real opportunity to set an example that could be followed at other levels of government and administration, and that is very important. Canadians deserve better.

I can only hope that members opposite will agree with this sentiment and work with all members of the House to make the much needed improvement to the legislation before it is subject to a vote.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the hon. member said about supply and management, and I am curious. When they were negotiating, as the hon. member spelled out, there were some trade-offs. Could the hon. member tell me just who the negotiator was at the GATT talks?

[Equalization, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the formula used to calculate equalization payments is anything but equal or fair to the people of Saskatchewan. Constituents in my riding are angry. The province's energy revenues have been clawed back at a rate of more than 100%. The math does not add up.

My province, already suffering from the economic effects of a declining population and the crisis in agriculture, will now see its equalization payment drop significantly. The finance minister says that the equalization program could not possibly fix all of Saskatchewan's financial woes. That is true. We have endured a decade of a failed socialist experiments at the provincial level. Even so, Saskatchewan should get what it deserves.

The complicated formula used to justify this unbalanced tax back is up for renewal. This is the time to do it right for all of the provinces.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member when we talks about taxes. The farmers have very little control over selling their own products and have nowhere to pass on their costs and yet they foot the tax bill for so many farm inputs. In our area for operating expenditures there are hidden taxes for everything from fuel to fertilizer to pesticides. There are all sorts of hidden taxes to seed. Farmers are paying taxes but they have nowhere to pass on their costs. They have little control over the price of their products. When we talk about taxes, farming, which is one of the most capital intensive industries, is indeed paying a lot of taxes.

Yes, it is a sad day for us in Canada when we see what is before us across the floor with the scandals that have unravelled. Yet we have not seen any action for an industry that is so vital, which was mentioned earlier, from coast to coast. We have a serious problem.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address my party's motion on misplaced priorities.

The waste perpetuated by the government has been tremendous. The sponsorship scandal, the gun registry and the other mismanaged government programs should not exist and should not have been allowed to continue once they were known to have gone askew.

The waste is bad enough in the best of times but the problem is compounded because this is not the best of times for Canadians. Our health care system has been slashed and hospitals have been closed. We have a shortage of doctors, long waiting lists for life-enhancing surgeries and access to diagnostic equipment is limited.

High tuition fees and the prospect of an overwhelming debt load is discouraging our young people, the people who will take care of us, from pursuing higher education.

Our cities and municipalities, struggling to deliver services passed on to them by other levels of government, cannot provide the essential infrastructure, such as roads, public transit and affordable housing, that would allow them to prosper.

Our armed forces personnel risk their lives serving in hostile areas in the world without the protection of modern equipment.

Police and other authorities are fighting a losing battle to make our streets safer from sexual predators, guns, drugs, gangs and organized crimes. They do not have the resources or the manpower to eliminate crime, and when they do overcome these obstacles, our justice system often sends the offenders back out into society with the most minimum of penalties.

Agriculture has been battered from a series of problems: drought, grasshoppers, subsidy wars, trade disputes and the ongoing mad cow crisis. Our agriculture sector is in ruins.

No, this is not the best time for Canada, and that makes the blatant squandering of our financial resources even worse.

The motion before us today, that the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs, such as the sponsorship program or badly managed programs, such as the gun registry, to address the agriculture crisis at the farm gate across Canada, is an important and timely suggestion.

Canadians are tired of the waste and of no one being accountable. They are tired of seeing the need all around them, yet not having the government respond in a meaningful way.

Today's motion is not about asking Canadians to shell out more money to help save the industry, rather it demands that the government make some common sense decisions about programs that are not working but are eating up vast amounts of resources. This is not rocket science. Ordinary Canadians do this every day when managing their own resources and budgets.

I am from Saskatchewan, the heart of the prairies, where agriculture is an important way of life. The west has been hit hard by this crisis, as has every region across the country. It is a national problem requiring a national solution, a solution that takes regional differences and needs into consideration.

According to the dictionary, agriculture is a science. It is an art or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops and raising livestock and, in varying degrees, the preparation and marketing of the resulting products. This is a basic definition. However, in Canada agriculture means much more than that. In some cases it represents a long held family tradition passed from generation to generation. Agriculture is a business, one that affects thousand of workers and transcends our borders into the global marketplace.

Agriculture is still a developing field. Innovation, science and initiative have resulted in novel best practices that have improved production and allowed us to circumvent some of nature's obstacles.

In Saskatoon, for example, we are known for research into the field of agricultural biotechnology.

Finally, agriculture is also part of our identity as Canadians and has a direct influence on our quality of living.

Let me cite some facts. The agriculture and food sector in Canada is the third largest employer. It accounts for more than 8% of our national GDP. It is clear that a healthy agriculture sector is vital to a healthy Canada, yet we find ourselves in a position where 2003 realized net farm income is expected to hit negative $13.4 million nationally.

In Saskatchewan the number will be negative $465 million, a drop of 177% from 2002. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would you do if your income went into the negative margins 177%?

Government aid programs are not designed to handle such an influx of problems this serious, let alone a situation like BSE where we are cut off from trade with the United States.

It should have been clear that more needed to be done after we saw the fallout of the discovery of the first case of mad cow last May, yet reports say that Health Canada scientists warned that proposed measures to curb the disease were inadequate. The warnings went unheeded and that reveals a level of arrogance that goes beyond being unprepared.

It is easy to lay blame and point fingers but that is not what our farmers need right now. What they do need is action, not a year from now, but today; not months from now, but today. They need help and they need it now.

As we have heard from my colleagues, we have a plan that would address short term needs as well as future considerations. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has itemized what needs to be done to help save this industry. For the short term it means topping up the 2002 Canadian farm income program payouts from 60% to 70% to a full 100% coverage; increasing processing capacity for mature cattle as well as all other livestock sectors; establishing a mature livestock rationalization program; creating a Canadian agriculture income support program top up for BSE affected farm operations; supporting interest free cash advances; and, convincing lending institutions that the Canadian government will support producer cashflow. Those measures would cost about $900 million, less than half the cost of the gun registry program.

In the mid-term an additional $100 million could help us continue to press for North American trade, particularly with the U.S., to return to its normal state; establish testing regimes for all non-North American markets; work toward integrated continent-wide rules on processing with regard to identification, handling and disposal of specific risk materials rendering protocols and trace out programs; and, support educational and promotional programs for domestic consumption of home-grown livestock.

Canadians have been extremely supportive of the beef industry during the BSE crises and it is imperative that we remain and maintain that confidence. In the longer term we can work to expand our market base by increasing our presence in countries, such as China and Russia. Like any industry, agriculture will prosper from growth in developing new markets.

All this could be accomplished at no cost to Canadians. It is a simple matter of directing money from programs that are not garnering appropriate results to ones that will show immediate and long lasting returns.

By essentially ignoring the crises, our government has put not only the agriculture sector at risk but also the many spin-off industries that rely on agriculture. Doing so, while continuing to waste money on ineffective programs, such as the gun registry, which is widely acknowledged as a complete failure, is insulting as well as irresponsible.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that government is doing all it can as efficiently as possible for Canadians in need. The need of farmers across the country could not be more apparent.

On behalf of the farmers and the agricultural producers in my riding, I ask my colleagues here in the House to support the motion. I ask my colleagues to send a signal to Canadians that we will not let the agriculture industry sink any further.

[Points of Order, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make a correction to what the parliamentary secretary said when he quoted me as saying that agriculture was not the third but the second most important industry in Canada. My words were “It was the third largest employer and one of the top five industries of the nation”. I did not say as he indicated. I would like that corrected.

[Agriculture, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry is the third largest employer of Canadians. It is one of our top five industries. Agriculture is in a crisis. The industry is sinking and the farmers are going down. Their loans are being called in. The industry is on the verge of collapse. This is an emergency and needs to be treated like an emergency.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell me if she will ask the Prime Minister to take emergency measures to address this crisis and to do it now.

[Agriculture, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has put our agriculture industry on the brink of disaster.

In Saskatchewan net farm income is down 177%. Imagine the Liberal action we would see if that party fell that fast and hard in the polls.

While the Prime Minister busies himself with scandal, the agriculture industry is sinking. Where do the farmers turn? Why does the Prime Minister have time and money for his Liberal friends but nothing for our struggling farmers?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks by the hon. member who just spoke. She is one of my colleagues from Calgary.

I want to ask her about what we can do. I had a letter from the manager of the International Student Office at the University of Saskatchewan, Kurt Tischler, who really wants to bring attention to the long delays in Vegreville and the implications for international students when they are applying to come into our universities and into the University of Saskatchewan.

I forwarded his letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and this is the letter I received back. I am wondering if this is good enough. I will read a couple of points in it, and I would like the hon. member to comment. It states:

Supporting a robust foreign student program in Canada remains a priority of Citizenship and Immigration, and we are continuing to look forward to additional efficiencies within existing resources and legislation to reduce processing times. We will also be seeking the input of our external stakeholders, such as the Canadian Bureau of International Education, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges to explore creative solutions.

I would just like--

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on the present Liberal government's plans. I know that Kyoto has been spelled out.

I refer to the headlines from the Ottawa Canadian Press :

Federal scientists issued warning about mad cow

Health Canada scientists warned their supervisors last year that proposed measures to curb mad cow disease were inadequate, but the department did not heed the advice.

What does the member think it has done to our industry not to have heeded that advice? We could have avoided the shutdown of our industry.

It goes on to state:

Private correspondence within the department reveals sharp dissent on how to respond to Canada's first case of...(BSE)...

She argued that safety measures proposed at the meeting, such as the removal of spinal cords and brains from slaughtered animals, were inadequate--

What would the member say about a plan for Canada's agriculture department?